Z. Movie vs. Book
 

A friend and I went to go see World War Z in the theatre...and we made a huge mistake. The movie is terrible on several levels.
What it did do is encourage me to read the book. Im really impressed. It used to be I thought the WORST book to movie was Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger", but its now been replaced.

Poor waste of money and time. The movie was a disaster and now NO ONE will touch the book to try to remake it like it should have been made.

Sorry I think that "The Sum of all Fears" takes the cake for worst Clancy adaption.

Writers: I have a great idea lets take the logical and well thought enemy of the movie (Islamic Terrorists) and replace them with the never cliche and totally surprising villain (wait for it)....... Neo Nazis.

As for CaPD while Clark was a total disappointment Domingo, was alright in my book (I like the actor).

But as Clancy said regarding how his work has been treated by the adaptations, "Selling a script to Hollywood is like selling your daughter to a whorehouse."

I loved WWZ, the novel, and felt very disappointed by the film. The screenplay butchered the novel. I understand that the format of the book doesn't really lend itself to direct conversion into a summer blockbuster movie, but I kept thinking throughout the film that I could have done a better, truer adaptation that still would have put butts in theater seats. An opportunity wasted is what the movie version was. Hollywood does one thing really well, and that is make cool source material lame beyond recognition.

To be fair, I found the first 15 minutes or so pretty good, in a suspenseful sort of way. But I also felt that they really missed the boat on the lead-up to the outbreak.

And did you notice Mathew Fox (from LOST fame) as one of the SEALS? I kept waiting for him to step up and take on a bigger role. He barely had two lines. What was that all about? I started to second guess myself but he was there in the end credits. If I was him, I would have asked for my name to be omitted.

I don't think cinematic adaptation is the right way to go for an epistolary novel. Do it as a fixed-length television series with an ensemble cast, one interview per episode, with your only constant character being the reporter (who's only present in the opening and closing sequences).

If you have a long drive or flight ahead of you, I recommend grabbing the audiobook. It's pretty darn well-executed.

- C.

Now that's a line!

But as Clancy said regarding how his work has been treated by the adaptations, "Selling a script to Hollywood is like selling your daughter to a whorehouse."


Paul beat me to it. :p

But on a serious note....with various executives, producers, directors, financiers, etc. etc. etc. all involved in a project where they always bring their own inflated egos, own self-styled interpretations, etc. with them, it's no surprise.

Thanks for the warning. I'll just wait until it comes on cable. I have the book, but I'm just so behind in my reading (I'm still constantly buying books, but never get around to reading them...)

I'm thinking that everyone here has imagination that beats any movie that can be made.

I am a huge fan of the book and had a feeling that this movie would suck once Brad Pitt was involved as the star. Not to mention that they had to reshoot the ending, that is not a good sign. I liked the format of the book but I think it would be hard to shift from each person's narrative.


I read somewhere on the interwebs that he did have a bigger role in the original ending, but since the original ending was cut, so was his part. I won't say what his role was but it is different than what you'd expect (or maybe not).

I am probably not going to see this in the theaters, will wait for it to come out on Redbox.

oh and by the way, a sequel is in the works.

Never too early to start cashing in on a franchise, apparently.

Selling a script to a whorehouse, indeed.